The mingling of the helms

[damianlz]

Of all the scenes in ancient history people think about, none play within my mind more than the day the intercisa helm was introduced too the roman legion. When raw recruits were marched into camp as legionaries and the murmuring amonst the troops as too the new helmet and panoply design, groans about change and veterans later nicking helmets too have a better look at them.

While I know we don't have an exact introduction of the Intercisa and phase out date of the Imperial/auxiliary helms I do wonder if they ever served (however briefly) within the same unit. Too those who are better with military dates would anyone know a likely candidate time, battle or even legion where such a changeover would be possible.

[jho]

It is impossible to determine an exact date when the change may have taken place. Most Niederbieber finds we have from the German Limes come from destruction layers of the 260s AD. There are two possible Niederbieber fragments (ear protectors) from slightly later contexts (Gelduba 276, Regensburg 282). The earliest dating context for an Intercisa is possibly the helmet found in the excavation of Augusta Raurica in 1967. It was found in a level with samian ware dated to between 200 AD and the first half of the 3rd century. It was only assigned a later date by the excavator on stylistic grounds.

There are at least two helmets which may represent Niederbieber helmets re-worked into Intercisa helmets (the one from Firenze had the neck area cut away and holes for a leather lining added at some point; the sloped brow area of the Richborough helmet may indicate that it was once a Niederbieber helmet) which indicates that they may have co-existed for some time.

There is also a Niederbieber allegedly from Ratiaria allegedly found with an Intercisa style nose guard. But neither the provenance nor the original association with the nose guard are secure. Finally, the Poitiers helmets from a 270s context, once believed to represent the "missing link" between both types have now convincingly been identified as gladiator helmets.

[Robert Vermaat]

It would depend entirely on how the system of introducing new equipment worked. Do we even have an idea about that? I can imagine one (elite?) regiment beginning to replace their equipment with new style armour, possibly due to a prolonged influence by foreign units before returning home.

Otherwise, perhaps the decision was made to introduce the new style in the fabricae production line, after which every replacemnet would be a new style one.

It is impossible to determine an exact date when the change may have taken place. Most Niederbieber finds we have from the German Limes come from destruction layers of the 260s AD. There are two possible Niederbieber fragments (ear protectors) from slightly later contexts (Gelduba 276, Regensburg 282). The earliest dating context for an Intercisa is possibly the helmet found in the excavation of Augusta Raurica in 1967. It was found in a level with samian ware dated to between 200 AD and the first half of the 3rd century. It was only assigned a later date by the excavator on stylistic grounds.

Is that a hard dating Jens? Or could the helmet have been dug into an older layer? Helmets like these were almost always gilded or silvered and we often find them because they were hidden as items of value.

There are at least two helmets which may represent Niederbieber helmets re-worked into Intercisa helmets (the one from Firenze had the neck area cut away and holes for a leather lining added at some point; the sloped brow area of the Richborough helmet may indicate that it was once a Niederbieber helmet) which indicates that they may have co-existed for some time.

The Richborough is an odd one, that's for sure. The Firenze helmet is not portrayed often enough!

There is also a Niederbieber allegedly from Ratiaria allegedly found with an Intercisa style nose guard. But neither the provenance nor the original association with the nose guard are secure. Finally, the Poitiers helmets from a 270s context, once believed to represent the "missing link" between both types have now convincingly been identified as gladiator helmets.

Do you mean a Berkasovo nose guard/nasal?

I agree, there is no reason to assume that the new style helmets were widely introduced within a fairly short time. I agree with the opinion that their use coincides with the need to rebuild the Roman army after the disasters of the 3rd century. Time and funding were both short, and the construction method of these helmets could very well reflect that. The use is not evidenced over a very long period: the ridge helmets seem to vanish during the 5th century, in favour of spangenhelm-styles I think. Both these and the imperial Gallic types lasted much longer.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Last Ridge Helmet is the River Mass and the Concesti, the former dating to 408-410 and the latter to the mid 5th century.

[jho]

Is that a hard dating Jens? Or could the helmet have been dug into an older layer? Helmets like these were almost always gilded or silvered and we often find them because they were hidden as items of value.

The excavator reports in Klumbach, Spätrömische Gardehelme, that he was present when the helmet was found near a wall in the topmost destruction layer of insula 20. He preferred to associate the helmet with a later phase and claimed that, as it was the topmost layer, there was a possibility that the helmet could have been dug into the older layer. This was, however, apparently based more on the fact that he could not believe that this type of helmet was in use earlier than the 4th century AD than on any real factual indication that the layers had been disturbed.

Many militaria were found in the civilan city of Augst which are associated with fighting in the city area in the 270s AD. However, as you correctly observe, deposition of this helmet would not appear to be a direct consequence of battle because, although no traces of silver sheet were found, all rivets had been removed before it was deposited. Whether this means that it still belonged to the battle but was stripped and deposited afterwards or whether it is more likely to have been independently deposited at a much later date, I cannot say. There appears to be little indication of use of this area beyond the 270s AD, but a deserted ruin may also be a good place to hide a helmet for whatever reason.

Do you mean a Berkasovo nose guard/nasal?

Yes, exactly. The find was discussed on RAT some time ago.

[Urselius]

The Coppergate and Pioneer helmets of 8th century England are clearly derived from Roman ridge helmets. They are not identical in construction but they are much more like ridge helmets than they resemble spangenhelms

[AMELIANVS]

Noth only in England/northern lands but also in central Europe helmet exemplars from 7-10th century shows striking similarities with what was once late Roman ridge helmet type.I've posted photos of it on RAT in the past but now I have no idea what discussion it was.It seems to me that ridge helmets in some form continued in existence long into medieval period but I don't want to claim it was necessarily a direct continuation of Roman ridge helmets.

[Paul Elliott]

To be honest Damien, it is likely the troops themselves encouraged the change, we do have a report of soldiers grumbling about the size, weight and inconvenience of the large 3rdC helmets. If you've ever worn one, you'll know what they were talking about! Even if the troops themselves didn't initiate the change, they may well have welcomed it.

Of all the scenes in ancient history people think about, none play within my mind more than the day the intercisa helm was introduced too the roman legion. When raw recruits were marched into camp as legionaries and the murmuring amonst the troops as too the new helmet and panoply design, groans about change and veterans later nicking helmets too have a better look at them.

While I know we don't have an exact introduction of the Intercisa and phase out date of the Imperial/auxiliary helms I do wonder if they ever served (however briefly) within the same unit. Too those who are better with military dates would anyone know a likely candidate time, battle or even legion where such a changeover would be possible.

[markusaurelius]

I'd trade in my brass helmet for a silver gilded/decorated helmet in a flash if Iwas amongst the troops. But hey i'm very facinated by them Besides the new nasal guard might save me the nexr few brokem noses froma shield umbo :grin:

[Urselius]

Also the previous types of helmet seem to have required reinforcing elements, the hinged reinforce above the brow and, increasingly, cross-reinforces on the upper skull. As ridge helmets were not given reinforces the most logical explanation is that they were inherently tougher.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I bet the ridge is what made them tough. You bring a sword down on that ridge and it's like hitting the side of an iron sheet rather than going through the flat part.

[Nathan Ross]

we do have a report of soldiers grumbling about the size, weight and inconvenience of the large 3rdC helmets.]

That's from Kestoi, probably by the early 3rd century author Julius Africanus. He says that military helmets are too large and impair vision. Although it's not entirely clear that Africanus was the author, so the date might be out by a half century or so... Has anyone seen the original passage? I only have a mention of it in Nicasie, himself quoting Bishop & Coulston 1993...

As ridge helmets were not given reinforces the most logical explanation is that they were inherently tougher.

I'd never consider that - but you could very well be right. A segmented bowl might actually have been stronger than a one-piece construction - the force of a blow would perhaps be transferred to the rivets, and even if one or two rivets broke the helmet might still hold together.

Maybe those late Romans weren't so backward after all? :wink:

[Paul Elliott]

we do have a report of soldiers grumbling about the size, weight and inconvenience of the large 3rdC helmets.]

That's from Kestoi, probably by the early 3rd century author Julius Africanus. He says that military helmets are too large and impair vision. Although it's not entirely clear that Africanus was the author, so the date might be out by a half century or so... Has anyone seen the original passage? I only have a mention of it in Nicasie, himself quoting Bishop & Coulston 1993...

Sextus Julius Africanus, writing in the early third century, recorded the complaints of soldiers griping about the difficulty they had moving their heads while wearing the helmets of the day. He says the helmets:

offer not enough protection against sling-shots, provide too little room for breathing and vision, and by extending down to the shoulder blades, they restrict the movement of the head. Thus in battle the Roman soldier not only suffers injury from sling-shots, but he cannot see incoming missiles or, if he does, the helmet cutting around his neck inhibits turning the head and dodging the projectiles.

Kestroi 1.1.50-52

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Thanks for that, he's also the guy who wrote about Automatic fire. I was gonna give that passage to my chemistry teacher and try and figure that stuff out.

@Nathan

I hadn't thought about it transferring the force to the rivets, good point.

[markusaurelius]

I hadn't thought about it transferring the force to the rivets, good point.

I also think that the ridge piece itself, in its shape and structure would have acted like a re-enforcing bar of the earlier helmets.